Where is the empirical data to show that people from states with less stringent training requirements are less safe than people from states with more stringent training requirements?

If you are going to put restrictions on a person right to bear arms, it seems you should be able to point to more than theory. It is really not clear to me what reasonable amount of training would prepare a person for armed self defense. I suspect so much training would be required to make a measurable difference that virtually no one would get a permit. Certainly a little live fire like Nevada requires does nothing substantial.

Liberal concealed carry has been shown to have a deterrent effect on crime. If you have fewer guns in the hands of citizens, you will have more crime. So let’s see some empirical data showing that the increase in crime (because fewer citizens carry) would be worth the relatively trivial problem of permit members misusing their guns.

Given that there are like three million permit holders and the VPC could only come up with 51 who misused their weapons and were charged with homicide in a two year period, we seem to be arguing about a problem that really does not exist. While I am of course obligated to say that even one death is too many, 51 out of 6 million is trivial. Check out this article, which nicely puts the VPC's study in perspective: http://www.examiner.com/x-3253-Minne...ights-Examiner

Some people seem to have the instinct that we should appease the gun haters by burdening ourselves with cumbersome rules. This is a road to nowhere. The gun haters hate guns. The only thing that will make them happy is if all gun owners are made felons. All restrictions do is reduce the number of people who exercise their right to bear arms, and therefore the number who are willing to vote to protect the right.

Too many hunters have the same problem. They think if we place tons of rules on hunting, and eliminate the 'bad' types of hunting like baiting or hunting with hounds, the anti-hunters will be appeased. All it does is diminish the number of hunters, reducing our voting clout, and the anti-hunters can never be appeased because they want to eliminate all hunting. They may say they want only reasonable restrictions, but when you ask them what individual restrictions they favor, they favor all of them. The same goes for the 'reasonable gun control' crowd.

Does anyone really find it surprising that the rise in public support for gun rights has happened at the same time that concealed carry was liberalized? They are trends that reinforce each other; as the number of people packing increased, those people would of course want to protect their rights. And their acquaintances would be comfortable with people packing, and maybe think about packing themselves. It has been a viscous cycle for the gun haters (if a virtuous cycle for the Republic).

If an onerous training regimen is required, only the gun nuts will pack. And our cause will be broken. We are only going to protect our rights in the long run if packing and having guns is something normal people do.

Of course stringent training requirements will also impact those most heavily who are busy and poor. Yes, it will disproportionately deter women and minorities from getting permits. It will just be the white male gun nuts packing, a part of the citizenry with diminishing political clout.

Most people who get a permit will never use it. A small percentage of people with permits will brandish their guns. An even small number will actually fire their weapons. A very small number of them, a statistically trivial number, will misuse their weapon, regardless of how much training they are required to have. The VPC will of course trumpet these few cases.

But amost all of the people who have permits will vote in support of the right to bear arms. And all of them are deterring crime.

The experiment in liberalizing concealed carry laws has been an astounding success. The lesson is that law abiding citizens can be trusted to act responsibly. In my state (Utah), famed for its lax training requirements, thousands of citizens can carry their guns to work, church (except the Mormon ones), grade schools, high schools, the state capitol, bars, restaurants, sporting events, college classes and public parks. Given the large number of permits, the number of problems we have had has been shockingly low. The VPC can trumpet the small number of incidents that have occurred, but regardless of what amount of training occurs there will always be incidents to blow out of proportion. Meanwhile, the number of permit holders keeps increasing and the state legislature keeps liberalizing the state’s gun laws. Liberal concealed carry leads to liberalized gun laws.

That is exactly why Shumer and company are terrified by national concealed carry. The virtuous cycle will begin in California, New York and other places where concealed carry has been restricted.

__________________
The only thing of value which we have at present is our arms and our courage. So long as we keep our arms we fancy that we can make good use of our courage; but if we surrender our arms we shall lose our lives as well.
-Theopompus

Last edited by green-grizzly; July 30, 2009 at 11:14 PM.
Reason: Add last paragraph

Where is the empirical data to show that people from states with less stringent training requirements are less safe than people from states with more stringent training requirements?...

You miss the point. It doesn't matter. This is a political issue, and perception is important. Try selling your analysis to the legislature or a court and let us know how far you get.

To repeat myself:

Quote:

Originally Posted by fiddletown

...The reality is that we have training requirements in a number of states, and the lack of comparable training requirements in some other states prevents CCWs from those other states from being honored in certain states with training requirements. The states with training requirements aren't going to abandon them, nor is it likely that the political and demographic circumstances in those states would support recognition of CCWs from states without training requirements. It fully appears that in many cases a training requirement is the political trade off for a "shall issue" CCW arrangement and/or reciprocal recognition of CCWs.

If you think you can change things, have at it.

I frequently hear (or see in print) someone saying something like, "The politicians don't trust me with guns" or "The government won't trust us with gun."

Actually, I doubt that the politicians really care. They live lives so removed from the rest of us, our guns aren't really much of a factor for them personally. What they care about is getting and keeping their jobs.

So what it comes down to is that enough of our neighbors, enough of the people in our community, enough of the people in our town, enough of the people in our county, enough of the people in our state, and enough of the people in our country don't like guns, and don't trust the rest of us with them, that politicians who take anti-gun stands can get elected and re-elected (and bureaucrats who take anti-gun stands can keep their jobs).

So we need to remember that part of the battle for our gun rights needs to be waged with our fiends and neighbors in our communities. So if we need to convince our skeptical neighbors that it's okay for us to be carrying loaded guns in public by showing that we are trained and know what we are doing, that may be be political price of "shall issue."

It only puts the VPC's study "nicely in perspective" if it is accepted by skeptical, non-gun folks. The fact that we may like it is meaningless. We're biased.

Quote:

Originally Posted by green-grizzly

...We are only going to protect our rights in the long run if packing and having guns is something normal people do....

Nonsense. I'm normal. The people in my classes at Gunsite have been normal. There are many normal people who also take the need for training and being a responsible gun owner seriously.

Quote:

Originally Posted by green-grizzly

Of course stringent training requirements will also impact those most heavily who are busy and poor...

If people are serious about it, they will find a way. If they're not serious about it, should they be carrying a loaded weapon around in public?

Quote:

Originally Posted by green-grizzly

...VPC can trumpet the small number of incidents that have occurred,...

As som of us have pointed out, it can only take a few to change things for the worse for us. In many states the body politic has little tolerance for incidents involving guns.

Quote:

Originally Posted by green-grizzly

...state legislature keeps liberalizing the state’s gun laws....

Where and how. In a few state, perhaps. But there sure hasn't been any recent great rush to liberalize gun laws in the majority of states. How have the gun laws been liberalized in Maryland, Illinois, Massachusetts or New York recently?

You still fail to explain why having untrained people carrying guns is a problem. Theory doesn't count. Sounding scary doesn't count. Public perception is just that, perception. It's an unquestionable fact that untrained people carrying guns causes far less problems than do any number of items which are "percieved" as non-issues.

You've done a thorough job of explaining your own perception of the general publics perception but have completely failed to explain WHY this mandatory trained should be required. "because people think it should be required" is irrelevent.

Making rules to keep your job may be what politicians do but it has no bearing on WHY such a rule SHOULD be made. In fact, it's a perfect example of why a rule should NOT be made.

__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.

...Sounding scary doesn't count. Public perception is just that, perception....

Yes it does, because people vote on such bases.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peetzakilla

..."because people think it should be required" is irrelevent.

No it's not irrelevant, because people vote on such a basis. We live in a pluralistic society, and people think many things. What people think will affect the laws that we will have to live under. And people thinking training should be required is a large part of the reason that CCWs from "no training" states aren't recognized by "required training" states.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peetzakilla

Making rules to keep your job may be what politicians do but it has no bearing on WHY such a rule SHOULD be made....

Why you think a rule should or should not be made will frequently have no bearing on whether or not the rule gets made. If enough voters support the making of a rule, for whatever reason seems good and sufficient to them, and whether or not you think the rule is proper or their reasons are valid, the rule will be made. And if supporting a rule will help a politician keep his job, he will support it, whether or not you think that's a proper reason to do so.

All right. I understand. Public perception rules. Logic and reality have no bearing. Our task is too assess the desires of the public at large and make every effort to comply and capitulate, regardless of the reasoning or rationale behind those sentiments.

I think I've gone around this circle enough times...

__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.

...I understand. Public perception rules. Logic and reality have no bearing. Our task is too assess the desires of the public at large and make every effort to comply and capitulate, regardless of the reasoning or rationale behind those sentiments....

Welcome to the wonderful world of politics. This is why Bismark said, "Anyone who likes law or sausage should watch neither being made."

It does matter because facts are one thing that can be used to change public perception. If people had a more realistic view of the actual dangers they would realize that buckling their seatbelt every day does more to make them safer than either CCW or requiring training for it.

Quote:

But I have a lot of trouble with this "I won't get my permit if it's too inconvenient" argument. Carrying a gun in public is a significant responsibility. One should take it seriously enough to be willing to put up with some bother and inconvenience to qualify. And if they aren't willing to put up with the trouble, are they really taking the responsibility seriously enough?

I think everybody here agrees that training is desirable. It is the government mandated training that makes people nervous; because the state governments have a long history of setting CCW requirements so that only a select few are given that right. Objective shall-issue laws have eliminated that problem in many states; but the fact remains that mandatory training laws do nothing to increase safety but still provide an obvious place to restrict the fundamental rights of self-defense to a smaller and smaller crowd.

Realistically, the chance you will be accidentally (or intentionally) shot by a CCW holder is almost zero. What is the chance that a state government will use mandatory training requirements to deny someone their right to self-defense? Common sense says you evaluate the risks and take the one with the best cost/benefit.

I'm torn on this one but, in the end, I don't have a problem with some training. I learned alot about the legal part of concealed carry and got some real world advice.

I didn't need it much for shooting, loading, safe handling, etc., but for legal stuff I was pretty deficient.

So, I guess I fall into the "yes" camp. But I remain torn on this one.

ETA: FWIW, I had "one-on-one" training and after the instructor saw how I handled guns, etc., he devoted the VAST majority of his instruction towards legal facts and issues. I'm glad we had that discussion and training. I personally needed it IMHO.

Also, he was a very good shot, so I got some good pointers on how to practice, etc. Overall it was a pleasant experience for me. I'm glad I took his class with only him and I attending.

(He said something at the very end of the class when I brought him home after going to the range: "I want you to be confident in the fact that you are a competent shot and will hit what you are aiming at". Man, that made me feel good and gave me confidence for the future of my concealed carry. I needed an instructor to judge whether I was a good enough shot to protect myself, family, etc. My head got about as big as a basketball when he said that. But, of course, he said, in so many words, "now don't get a big head over what I just told you about your shooting ability". I ain't a great shot but you guys get what I mean about the "confidence builder" from a pro.)

So, even though I have a problem with "forced" training, the experience was a good one IMHO. I learned legal stuff and the instructor gave me confidence in my ability to shoot after all these years. (I'm sounding kind of wishy washy aren't I. )

Where is the empirical data to show that people from states with less stringent training requirements are less safe than people from states with more stringent training requirements?

Ignoring the fact that the argument is not necessarily about the concept of being "less safe," you need to realize that in any analysis involving a paucity of actual data (there are relatively few guns carried concealed, and far fewer are ever drawn), one must use analytical and decision analysis methods other than data regression.

Case in point: there was never any empirical data indicating that the absence of the application of thermal properties specifications to the interface seals on the STS SRB (Space Transportation System Solid Rocket Booster) might well result in a catastrophic mission loss and an extremely damaging program hiatus. However, an adequate failure mode and effect analysis (one starts with assessing "what if" the seal should become brittle at low temperatures) that would have cost thousands might well have saved many billions. One cannot rely on actual data unless there is enough of it to analyze, but that does not alter the severity of the risk.

Apply the same thing to gun ownership. "What if" a gun owner is (unlike Peetzakilla and many others) innocently unaware that shooting at a fleeing burglar (or worse, at a thief) is far from a lawful heroic act, and does just that, committing a felony and perhaps severely injuring innocent people? The consequences can be horrendous, to say the least.

What is the probability that that, or any of the myriad of other possible tragic acts, might happen? For any one gun owner, somewhere between remote and less than remote, I'll agree. What is the significance of the potential consequences? On the very high end of "extremely severe", I think.

One needs to take into account likelihood, potential consequences, and the feasibility of mitigation. Kinda like deciding whether it's a good idea to have a fire extinguisher in the kitchen.

So the question becomes whether to accept the risk or to try to mitigate it. What would the cost of a reasonable mitigation plan be? Well, in Missouri, state audits showed the cost of putting someone through an eight hour training course to be about $100.

Compare that to the potential consequences. At the low end, legal costs on the high end of five figures. At the high end, loss employment, loss of personal freedom, and the loss of all assets in expenses and in a civil judgment.

What kind of probability would one need to show before concluding that the investment would be a very, very good one? One need not be a professional underwriter to realize that for those not already very knowledgeable, not making the investment would be foolhardy, even with a success rate of, say, less than two thirds.

Should it be mandatory? Well, most states do mandate the carrying of auto liability insurance for drivers. Is that an abridgment of personal freedom?

And when one applies the analysis to the aggregate of the gun owning population and understands that an extremely low incidence of tragic events would be required to change public sentiment materially, that brings up the already much discussed risk to the continued right of gun ownership.

Quote:

Some people seem to have the instinct that we should appease the gun haters by burdening ourselves with cumbersome rules. This is a road to nowhere.

I do not believe that a $100, one day investment in something that might undo the harmful effects of one's having watched too much television constitutes a "cumbersome rule", nor do I think it has anything to do with appeasing the gun haters. It's just good sense--and intelligent risk management.

Quote:

The gun haters hate guns. The only thing that will make them happy is if all gun owners are made felons. All restrictions do is reduce the number of people who exercise their right to bear arms, and therefore the number who are willing to vote to protect the right.

You nailed it. Let's try to give them less ammo, OK?

Last edited by OldMarksman; July 31, 2009 at 08:58 AM.
Reason: Corrections

Should it be mandatory? Well, most states do mandate the carrying of auto liability insurance for drivers. Is that an abridgment of personal freedom?

Let's ask that same question in CCW terms - should CCW holders be required to carry liability insurance for accidental shootings? After all, it is an objective requirement. Is that an abridgement of your personal freedom?

It does matter because facts are one thing that can be used to change public perception. If people had a more realistic view of the actual dangers they would realize that buckling their seatbelt every day does more to make them safer.....

What facts? In any case, go an change public perception, and have fun. Look at how many people are still complaining about seat belts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

I think everybody here agrees that training is desirable.....

Actually, I don't think so. We've seen many threads, here and on other gun boards, with lengthy diatribes by the "We don't need no stinkin' training" crowd. Hoards of gun owners seem not to know what they don't know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

...the chance you will be accidentally (or intentionally) shot by a CCW holder is almost zero. What is the chance that a state government will use mandatory training requirements to deny someone their right to self-defense?...

The chance that you will need your gun for self defense are almost zero as well. But unlikely events occur. And while the risk is small, the possible cost is substantial (there's part of your risk benefit analysis).

Quote:

Originally Posted by rzach

...government mandated training will be for the select...

No, training is available to all. For some, it may mean some inconvenience or financial sacrifice, But if it's important enough to someone, he will find a way. Being willing to do so is part of taking the responsibility of walking around in public with a loaded weapon seriously.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

...- should CCW holders be required to carry liability insurance for accidental shootings?...

In some "may issue" states it can in fact be required.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

...Is that an abridgement of your personal freedom?

Living in an organized society amongst other humans is one abridgment of personal freedom after another.

I'll leave aside the argument that politics is irrational, as it therefore becomes idiotic to argue about it. It is an awfully convenient way to avoid having to support your argument with any empirical data. It seems to me that if you are going to argue for restricting a basic constitutional right, you need to have some pretty hard data to support that. Clearly the data does not exist. When you can't support your argument with facts, I guess we are left with battling with perceptions. And of course perceptions differ, and they are immune to being disproved with facts.

Here is my perception, FWIW. I got a permit. When people find out I have a permit, they don't think it is as weird to have a permit because I am only a little weird. My wife has a permit. She would not have gotten the permit if there was a bunch of training required. She rarely carries. I worked hard to get her a gun that is simple to use, because clearly she was not going to spend a lot of time training. Now my wife is not weird at all. It totally changes people's attitude towards concealed carry when they find out she has a permit. They think it is for normal people, not freaks like you guys.

And, most importantly, when my wife travels alone she can carry a gun. I don't know for sure how effective she would be fighting off an attacker, but I'm sure she would not be any less effective. That is pretty important to me, more important than the public's perception or politics.

I really don't get the 'people are too stupid to make the right decisions' school of political thought, where perception is more important than facts. It seems to have a pretty strong following in conservative circles. I suppose doom, gloom, skepticism and futility comes naturally to the conservative mind, as well as the belief that the people can't be fully trusted. That is not all bad. But as gun owners, I think we generally want to trust people to do the right things with guns. The evidence shows that they can be trusted, even with pro forma training like Utah requires. I'm tempted to make the same arguments again on this, but I'll wait for some hard data which shows that more training leads to a statistically significant decrease in firearms misuse. I expect I'll be waiting for a while.

And I am again tempted to go over the argument again that appeasing gun haters does not do any good, but I will wait for examples of when this has ever worked.

I think it is very telling that when I say that my state keeps liberalizing our gun laws, fiddletown says:

Quote:

Where and how. In a few state, perhaps. But there sure hasn't been any recent great rush to liberalize gun laws in the majority of states.

Perhaps fiddletown has never seen the map showing the astounding expansion of shall issue CCW. Perhaps he has not read about the great gun rights victories we have made in those states. Two-thirds of the state's attorney generals support the incorporation of the second amendment. That is the first time a majority of states have supported a restriction of their own power. Just look at the legislative actions from states where there is shall issue CCW; the direction is almost always in favor of gun rights. We have even had major victories at the federal level: the gun industry was protected from frivolous lawsuits and we will be able to carry in National Parks for the first time since the Roosevelt administration.

Gun ownership was headed for extinction before liberal shall issue concealed carry came along. Polls show that there have been major shifts in public opinion in favor of the right to bear arms, and that shift happened as liberal shall issue concealed carry spread. Support for gun rights has increased most rapidly in those areas with liberal permit process. Check out Pew's polling data. It used to be that twice as many people who thought controlling guns was more important than gun rights; now the numbers are about the even. And we of course have more power because we have more dedicated fanatics than they do. We have had a real turnaround on the public's attitude towards guns in the last 20-30 years, and I think there is a pretty clear relationship with the timing of that and liberal concealed carry.

To the extent there is a perception about liberal CCW in states that have it, the perception seems to be it works great.

Even fiddletown agrees about the efficacy of liberal CCW laws in protecting gun rights when he says that:

Quote:

How have the gun laws been liberalized in Maryland, Illinois, Massachusetts or New York recently?

Of course they have not been liberalized in those states fiddletown. What do those states have in common? Concealed permits are hard (or impossible) to get. Those states that issue permits all require lots of training. How is support for gun rights going in those states? You prove my case. The harder we make it to carry, the less support there will be for gun rights. Your "perception"/appeasement argument is not supported by the facts.

__________________
The only thing of value which we have at present is our arms and our courage. So long as we keep our arms we fancy that we can make good use of our courage; but if we surrender our arms we shall lose our lives as well.
-Theopompus

Last edited by green-grizzly; July 31, 2009 at 11:18 AM.
Reason: shpelling

Those states that issue permits all require lots of training. How is support for gun rights going in those states? You prove my case. The harder we make it to carry, the less support there will be for gun rights. Your "perception"/appeasement argument is not supported by the facts.
__________________

Texas has a fairly substantial training requirement with an all day course and shooting test of 50 rounds. That's not a true tactical experience but it is more than most and we are pretty good on gun rights.

Except for parking lot and work laws - where the property rights (oh, liability) hounds howl in the night. Flame on -

As far as I can see there is no evidence that training states have a better safety record. However, that is totally confounded by the demographics of the CCW/CHL population - usually responsible and older.

Extreme training and fees - which we don't have, is proposed as a way to keep down the permit numbers. As is the use of extensive property and location bans.

We do have some cases of CCW holders doing tactically stupid things but these are small numbers. Should they drive the conversation?

Gun laws are on an upturn of liberalization (how about dat for a word?) but some horror show can turn that around. Conservative politicians aren't necessarily friends of the SD and AR crowd - or of civil liberties (here comes the Army to arrest you - Yoo, Yoo! - clever pun here).

Thus, we can't really tell if the requirements help. I know from research that most TX CHLs and heavily trained folks are not blood in the street vigilantes.

My bottom line - is that - a course on laws and common sense are OK. The shooting test - iffy on that. I've researched a bit and found that the failure rate on the shooting test and written test in TX is pretty low - about 1% - and reshoots with a little help from the teacher get most through.

If reasonable measures, like TX, get a CCW law passed in the remaining 10 states - go for it. The GOA absolutist position on such is real world counterproductive.

I also reiterate my position that getting training is a good thing and you should if you talk the talk. While it may be the case that most incidents are resolved by waving the gun and the BG fleeing - I postulate that one might worry about the Black Swan case - rare but intense. It is clear from the training lit that emergency actions don't come automatically to all and training does help.

In any case we still have training requirements in a number of states, and the lack of comparable training requirements in some other states prevents CCWs from those other states from being honored in certain states with training requirements. The states with training requirements aren't going to abandon them, nor is it likely that the political and demographic circumstances in those states would support recognition of CCWs from states without training requirements. Also, while national reciprocity legislation has been kicking around Congress for a bunch of years, it still hasn't gotten anywhere.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer

...I postulate that one might worry about the Black Swan case - rare but intense....

A good point. We need to remember the limited predictive value of the so called "empirical evidence" of the past. As they say in the sale of investments, "Past performance is no guarantee of future results." And much economic, political and social history has been shaped by random events inconsistent with things that have happened previously.

Let's ask that same question in CCW terms - should CCW holders be required to carry liability insurance for accidental shootings? After all, it is an objective requirement. Is that an abridgement of your personal freedom?

Excellent question, worthy of reasoned discussion.

First, let's consider the advisability of having umbrella coverage from the standpoint of the gun owner (many people do have it).

Same thing as before--the likelihood of ever needing it is remote, but the consequence of needing it and not having it would be extremely severe. You stand to lose everything. This is probably not unlike a situation involving just about anything else you are insured for. In my view, not having it in today's litigious society would be foolhardy. Kinda like driving without insurance. By the way, it ain't costly.

So--should it be mandatory? Well, should the unlikely happen and you and/or your loved one be struck by a bullet, lawn dart, arrow, child from a trampoline, or golf ball, the consequences could be extremely severe. Suppose that you are not killed or permanently impaired--you could still require extensive cosmetic reconstructive surgery that would not be covered by your medical plan, and the covered expenses could consume most or all of your lifetime benefit limit. That's assuming you have health coverage to start with. And then there's loss of income.

But not to worry. The shooter (golfer, etc.) is liable.

But that won't do you a whit of good unless he is insured or has very deep pockets.

So--would it be a good idea from your point of view for him to have insurance? You betcha!

Again, good question, worth pondering.

By the way, a quick review of state laws will show that states that do require some classroom instruction, some proficiency training, and/or some evidence of safety instruction or proficiency instruction for granting CCW permits outnumber those that do not--handily.

I suggest that reasonable steps toward greater uniformity could lead to greater reciprocity.

I'm glad they do have a training class here in Florida. Since Obama has been elected , every yahoo and their sister has applied for a ccw permit. I cant Imagine turning all these people loose on the streets with out at least the basic fundamentals of firearms training. Think I would stay inside and lock the doors.

I'm glad they do have a training class here in Florida. Since Obama has been elected , every yahoo and their sister has applied for a ccw permit. I cant Imagine turning all these people loose on the streets with out at least the basic fundamentals of firearms training. Think I would stay inside and lock the doors.

I do have to say that I'm against a legal requirement but I think its only responsible for those that are new to firearms to take a course or get some instruction from a willing and knowledgeable friend. I had safety and the legalities built into me by a former Marine who was a lawyer and consider myself lucky to have gotten such instruction at an early age. I think its up to all of us to "pay it forward" and educate others about safety (and the fun of shooting).

I must say that I didn't expect as much of a response to this question. Its an intriguing question since there are bills in the GA legislature to require training and the only reason I'd think about supporting them would be to have SC recognize a Georgia permit.

And, who decides that? I am decidedly against state mandated training. I am strongly in favor of training, but I do not feel that it needs to be formal.

Quote:

Certainly demonstrating competence and possessing knowledge of the legalities of using deadly force is not too much to ask of someone who wishes to carry a deadly weapon in public.

Here he come to one of the cruxes of the issue. Your (the public's) desire to feel safe, versus the individual's burden of proving such to (supposedly) impartial authority.

You want me to prove my competence to you? Fine. Test me. I'll pass any test within sane standards. I don't have formal" training for ccw, but I have had gun safety, and have been handling firearms for over 40 years, and I know the applicable laws. Plus I did serve in the Army. Now, tell me that I have to attend X number of hours of mandatory training, before you will approve me, and we will have words on that!

The problem is also one of the slippery slope. About 35 years ago, NYS decided that some "formal" training was needed to obtain a pistol license (not ccw). The state (bureaucrats) decided that 8 hrs (classroom type) was needed. They did not fund it. NO state employees gave it, or were involved. The training was given by NRA certified volunteers. But with out it, no permits would be approved. A few years later, the state decided that 24 hrs was needed. And, predictably, as more requirements were added, the number of volunteers giving the courses declined. That was over 30 years ago, I don't know what is needed today.

Other states (at least one in the midwest) passed regs requiring "safety classes", and over time did all that they could to make the classes difficult/impossible for people to get into, thus denying them the opportunity to even apply for permits, without "denying them their rights".

Take a look at the issue of arming airline pilots after 9/11/01! Already licensed, medical examined, psychiatrically evaluated, and trusted with hundreds of passenger's lives every time they take off, the pilots were then required to jump through an extensive (and rediculous) set of hoops in order to be "approved" to be armed! So much so, that many simply didn't bother.

It matters not what the state sets for its training requirements, in the beginning they might be quite reasonable. But they are not fixed, not set in stone. They can, and have been, changed at the whim of politicians and bureaucrats. Therefore, state mandated training is a hugely BAD IDEA! A slippery slope, greased with the "good intentions" of the anti gunners.

So what you wind up with, as the "training requirements" get more and more restrictive, or the opportunities to take the training become reduced, are people who fall into the following classes.
1) People who are serious enough to make what ever sacrifices are necessary, and pay the cost (in time and money) to follow the letter of the laws.
2) People who find compliance too difficult, and do not carry
3) People who find compiance too difficult, and do carry anyway, risking punishment under the law.

And because those who find compliance too difficult are often those in the bottom levels of lawful society, I find the whole concept biased and predjudicial against them. I dislike the situation being applied to them, and especially dislike it being applied to me!

Knowing what you ar doing is good. It is essential to safety. But formal training, while good and useful, is not essential. People can, and do learn important things without being "schooled". I do not object to the idea of a compentency test, but again, beware the slippery slope!

__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

Although i can see the point of States like Indiana that require no training, VA is not too bad. Former military just have to show a discharge paper, free hunter safety courses, required for a hunting license qualify. I took a three hour course tonight that did include a little live fire, it qualifies, if you can convince the Clerk of the Court you are safe with a gun, by history of hunting or whatever, no formal training is required. As our instructor said, he tries his best but had a student come back the day after a course and shoot a hole in his shop's wall. I took my wife for just safety issues since we now have a gun and I wanted her to have a little formal training, but she can take the certificate down to the Court and file for the CPP if she wants. She liked shooting a Glock 19 (compact 9mm), I had a Glock 22 (0.40 S&W). Her first shot was right in the bulls-eye, inner ring. First time with a handgun, the rest were also better than mine.

One one hand, owning and using a firearm should be none of the government's business ...

On the other hand, when I originally got my CHL, there was a woman in my class who brought a brand-new snubbie to class, it had NEVER even been fired and she had never shot a gun ... on the first shooting portion of the class, she flunked badly ... but rather than tell her to head for the range and practice, then come back, the instructor basically walked her through a retest of that portion and she passed, barely ... my point is that I hate the idea of that woman wandering around the street with a loaded gun in her purse ... I'm sure she's never fired another shot and still has no idea what she's doing ...

I don't object to testing and I don't object to requiring training for concealed carry for that reason. A gun is like a car; you need training and practice to operate it properly ... of course, JMHO..

__________________
"If all guns were built with mechanisms that kept them from firing when held sideways, we could end gang violence." humorist Frank Fleming

This email link is to reach site administrators for assistance, if you cannot access TFL via other means. If you are a TFL member and can access TFL, please do not use this link; instead, use the forums (like Questions, Suggestions, and Tech Support) or PM an appropriate mod or admin.

If you are experiencing difficulties posting in the Buy/Sell/Trade subforums of TFL, please read the "sticky" announcement threads at the top of the applicable subforum. If you still feel you are qualified to post in those subforums, please contact "Shane Tuttle" (the mod for that portion of TFL) via Private Message for assistance.

This email contact address is not an "Ask the Firearms Expert" service. Such emails will be ignored. If you have a firearm related question, please register and post it on the forums.